People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.

Except they needed to include the NFLPA in that equation. They did not. The NFLPA did not know that the owners were abiding by an "agreement" just between the owners to keep salaries and payments to the players down.

I'll continue to maintain that the Cowboys, Redskins and other teams (yes, other teams dumped salary in 2010) did nothing wrong. They used the uncapped year as it was intended to be used according to the understanding of the NFL and NFLPA during the previous CBA agreement which stipulated that if the new CBA wasn't completed by 2010, the year would be uncapped. Meaning, there would be ZERO restrictions on how much teams could spend and in what manner they spent it. The players pushed for it as a means to be a "hammer" to get the owners to get to the table and bargain with them. The owners agreed to the uncapped year, knowing that it meant that cash-rich teams could use their cash to dump salary into that year and not have it affect them once the new CBA was signed. The Redskins contracts with Hall and Haynesworth were not novel inventions. Other teams had used them before as well. All the Redskins did was resturcture the contracts in which a large portion of the money was moved into 2010. Hall still remained a Redskin right up until this offseason. Haynesworth was still on the team the next year. So the Redskins weren't doing it so they could "cut" anyone (lest someone start THAT falsehood again).

But it is what it is. The NFL owners decided on an amorphous "violating the spirit of the ssalary cap" (per John Mara's statement and others' statements this was the reason for the penalty). They got away with it by strong-arming the NFLPA once the first season of the new CBA was finished and the NFL was in the clear. I will say it again, the Redskins and Cowboys (and other teams) didn't do anything wrong. They used the year for what it was meant to be used for (and which was the understanding of the owners AND players this is what would happen) consistent with the previous CBA which laid out that uncapped year. The owners, tried to then agree not to act like the year was uncapped and to conduct business like there was stil la cap in place. Can't do that and leave out the NFLPA.

But they get away with it because the NFLPA decided to look after themselves for one year and agree to help the other owners screw over the Cowboys and Redskins.

People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.

Except they needed to include the NFLPA in that equation. They did not. The NFLPA did not know that the owners were abiding by an "agreement" just between the owners to keep salaries and payments to the players down.

I'll continue to maintain that the Cowboys, Redskins and other teams (yes, other teams dumped salary in 2010) did nothing wrong. They used the uncapped year as it was intended to be used according to the understanding of the NFL and NFLPA during the previous CBA agreement which stipulated that if the new CBA wasn't completed by 2010, the year would be uncapped. Meaning, there would be ZERO restrictions on how much teams could spend and in what manner they spent it. The players pushed for it as a means to be a "hammer" to get the owners to get to the table and bargain with them. The owners agreed to the uncapped year, knowing that it meant that cash-rich teams could use their cash to dump salary into that year and not have it affect them once the new CBA was signed. The Redskins contracts with Hall and Haynesworth were not novel inventions. Other teams had used them before as well. All the Redskins did was resturcture the contracts in which a large portion of the money was moved into 2010. Hall still remained a Redskin right up until this offseason. Haynesworth was still on the team the next year. So the Redskins weren't doing it so they could "cut" anyone (lest someone start THAT falsehood again).

But it is what it is. The NFL owners decided on an amorphous "violating the spirit of the ssalary cap" (per John Mara's statement and others' statements this was the reason for the penalty). They got away with it by strong-arming the NFLPA once the first season of the new CBA was finished and the NFL was in the clear. I will say it again, the Redskins and Cowboys (and other teams) didn't do anything wrong. They used the year for what it was meant to be used for (and which was the understanding of the owners AND players this is what would happen) consistent with the previous CBA which laid out that uncapped year. The owners, tried to then agree not to act like the year was uncapped and to conduct business like there was stil la cap in place. Can't do that and leave out the NFLPA.

But they get away with it because the NFLPA decided to look after themselves for one year and agree to help the other owners screw over the Cowboys and Redskins.

You can maintain whatever you care to maintain. Dan and Jerry tried to bend the league over and the league pushed back. And I, for one, am delighted they did. I like a balanced NFL. I wouldnt like an NFL where one team has millions and millions more to spend than any other team. I am glad the NFL owners recognize most fans agree. And took steps to protect the league from that happening.

The Cowboys and Redskins scrwwed themselves. They screwed themselves when they decided to bite the hand that feeds them._________________
CK on the sig

People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.

Except they needed to include the NFLPA in that equation. They did not. The NFLPA did not know that the owners were abiding by an "agreement" just between the owners to keep salaries and payments to the players down.

I'll continue to maintain that the Cowboys, Redskins and other teams (yes, other teams dumped salary in 2010) did nothing wrong. They used the uncapped year as it was intended to be used according to the understanding of the NFL and NFLPA during the previous CBA agreement which stipulated that if the new CBA wasn't completed by 2010, the year would be uncapped. Meaning, there would be ZERO restrictions on how much teams could spend and in what manner they spent it. The players pushed for it as a means to be a "hammer" to get the owners to get to the table and bargain with them. The owners agreed to the uncapped year, knowing that it meant that cash-rich teams could use their cash to dump salary into that year and not have it affect them once the new CBA was signed. The Redskins contracts with Hall and Haynesworth were not novel inventions. Other teams had used them before as well. All the Redskins did was resturcture the contracts in which a large portion of the money was moved into 2010. Hall still remained a Redskin right up until this offseason. Haynesworth was still on the team the next year. So the Redskins weren't doing it so they could "cut" anyone (lest someone start THAT falsehood again).

But it is what it is. The NFL owners decided on an amorphous "violating the spirit of the ssalary cap" (per John Mara's statement and others' statements this was the reason for the penalty). They got away with it by strong-arming the NFLPA once the first season of the new CBA was finished and the NFL was in the clear. I will say it again, the Redskins and Cowboys (and other teams) didn't do anything wrong. They used the year for what it was meant to be used for (and which was the understanding of the owners AND players this is what would happen) consistent with the previous CBA which laid out that uncapped year. The owners, tried to then agree not to act like the year was uncapped and to conduct business like there was stil la cap in place. Can't do that and leave out the NFLPA.

But they get away with it because the NFLPA decided to look after themselves for one year and agree to help the other owners screw over the Cowboys and Redskins.

We've already established that there was collusion. Let's set aside the CBA argument. I'm not interested in the reason for the uncapped year. I'm not interested in millionaires fighting billionaires over money. I'm interested in having a FAIR league. The salary cap is there to create a competitive league. The owners with the most money to spend shouldn't be able to buy all the talent. The owners understand that, and therefore they colluded during the uncapped year. I'm fine with that. I think it's great. The bottom line is that while every other owner played by the gentlemen rules, a few owners tried to use the year to gain an UNFAIR advantage. The penalty that was levied took away the advantage that the Redskins and Cowboys tried to gain. It's as simple as that._________________

"Has courage and poise. In my opinion, most of all, he has that quality you can't define. Call it magic."

People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.

They did it for the best interest of their own pocketbooks and screwed lots of players out of a lot of money in the process.

The irony of this statement is overwhelming. The Redskins used that year to dump past FA mistakes that were cap liabilities. They were the ones that screwed players out of money.

They cut players that they would not have been able to release if there was a salary cap due to the cap penalties it would have incurred.

Whcih players were cut?

My bad. Traded Haynesworth immediately following that season. Would that have been possible without the restructure?

In fact, DeAngelo Hall had highest cap hit of all NFL players in 2010.

Hall's cap hit (if there would have been a cap) was a massive 19.7 million in 2010. Compare that to his other years on that contract. His cap hit was 5.3 million in 09, 5 million in 2011 and 6.5 million in 2012._________________
Kempes on the custom sig!

WozJoined: 10 Mar 2006Posts: 22800Location: in a land where the furniture folds to a much smaller size

Posted: Thu Mar 21, 2013 12:35 am Post subject:

jrry32 wrote:

Thaiphoon wrote:

jrry32 wrote:

Runaway Jim wrote:

Gmen wrote:

People continue confusing what is legal and what is right. You are acting as though CBA law is some sort of moral code. Who cares that the owners colluded? They did it for fairness and in the best interest of the league. Two owners tried to take advantage of it, and got busted. It's as simple as that.

They did it for the best interest of their own pocketbooks and screwed lots of players out of a lot of money in the process.

The irony of this statement is overwhelming. The Redskins used that year to dump past FA mistakes that were cap liabilities. They were the ones that screwed players out of money.

They cut players that they would not have been able to release if there was a salary cap due to the cap penalties it would have incurred.

Whcih players were cut?

My bad. Traded Haynesworth immediately following that season. Would that have been possible without the restructure?

Smoot: signed five year deal with $7M signing bonus in 2007. Had there been a salary cap, he would have saved the Redskins $1.1M with full acceleration ($2.8M pro-ration vs. $3.9M salary), or $2.5M with $1.4M in dead cap in 2011 (Contract).

Thomas: signed a seven year deal in 2003 worth $28M with a $7M signing bonus. I do know that he renegotiated a time or two (once in 2005 and once in 2006 to make room for Betts, see below), so it's possible he might have had more than was due to him at the end than one would think. However, it was the end of a seven year deal. There's also the fact he was signed by Miami and then terminated a week later in training camp due to injury that explains why he wouldn't have been on our roster anyhow.

Betts: signed a five year extension in December 2006 (5 years, $11M total, $3.5M signing bonus). While I cannot find what his salary was in year four, I have to believe the $1.4M his signing bonus pro-ration would have been more.

Randle El: Originally signed to a six year, $31M contract, with $11.5M in bonuses (per the Post, that's a combination of roster and signing bonuses). Even if we put it all in signing bonuses, it's fair to assume that he would have been a savings over the $3.833M in his pro-ration.

Griffin: Best I can find is that it was a six year deal worth $25.5M total. He had a 2010 salary of $5.2M. Again, there might have been some renegotiations in there, it's likely he would have been a cap casualty anyway (and made up for savings).